Page 2031 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 4 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
challenging regular occurrence to manage if a woman has some kind of intellectual, cognitive or even physical disability.
However, this is an issue which can be dealt with by teaching menstrual management or using menstrual suppression medication as opposed to sterilisation. Sterilisation is final, and using it to prevent bleeding or, worse, to prevent unwanted pregnancy because the woman concerned could be at such a risk of sexual abuse is against human rights principles and should not be used as a way of influencing a person with disability behaviour or movement without their informed consent. I feel reassured by the senior practitioner that this issue is on her radar and I have every confidence that she will be concerned with restrictive practices with regard to reproductive rights.
Of course, people with disability, older people, people living with mental illness and children and young people all have the right to be treated with respect, and I note that the definition of restrictive practice goes beyond chemical restraints to also include mechanical and physical restraints and seclusion, amongst other things, which is as it should be. I am also very pleased that the use of a restrictive practice outside a registered and agreed behaviour support plan will prompt a notification to the senior practitioner who will then review that decision to use restrictive practice. This adds a layer of protection for those who are protected under this legislation and ensures that the senior practitioner can perform her functions with appropriate authority and delegation.
It ensures that the rights of people who may be subject to restrictive practices are upheld and that providers must comply with any applicable guidelines and standards on the use of restrictive practices. It gives providers and their staff clear guidance about what to do in the event of using such a practice outside a behaviour support plan or an emergency situation, which of course may be necessary in order to prevent harm.
I am also pleased to see that the penalties for the use of restrictive practice outside a behaviour support plan have been amended to remove the possibility of imprisonment. The maximum penalty of 50 penalty units is around $8,000, and that is a significant enough deterrent. We do not need more people imprisoned for offences such as these when we are already dealing with a large number of detainees in the AMC. We do not need a punitive approach but we need an approach that enables providers to uphold a person’s rights, dignity and freedom and a system where workers or providers should not be prohibited from open disclosure and collaboration with the senior practitioner. The removal of the threat of imprisonment achieves this goal.
I understand too the need to extend the time frame for commencement of these offences from July this year to July 2020. This will give ample time for the senior practitioner to raise with service providers more awareness of what constitutes restrictive practice and, when it is appropriate, to enable them to adjust or alter practices and ensure that behaviour support plans exist.
I note and support the minister’s subsequent amendment which specifies that restrictive practice can be used if a provider believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use it to avoid imminent harm to the person or others. I support this amendment because in the heat of the moment it can be difficult for a provider to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video